Solar A*C*G

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description earns credit for adding cost (100 credits, Tier 4), the endpoint, and a return-shape note that planet names carry an SR suffix. It does not discuss rate limits or whether the map is global versus zone-scoped, which are the remaining behavioral gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One front-loaded sentence plus compact metadata lines (group, endpoint, cost); no filler. The trailing suffix note is terse but useful rather than padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the input schema is fully documented. For a read-only, idempotent computation the description plus structured fields cover everything an agent needs to select and call it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the nested body schema exhaustively documents date/time/latitude/longitude, timezone handling, ayanamsa, and house systems. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the schema does all the work and baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource: astrocartography (A*C*G) computed for the solar return of a given year, with the definition of solar return spelled out (Sun returning to natal longitude). It's clearly differentiable from astroway_geo_acg or astroway_prognostics_solar_return in substance, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The scope (solar return ACG) implies when to use it versus natal ACG or plain solar return, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus astroway_geo_acg, astroway_geo_relocation, or astroway_prognostics_solar_return, and no prerequisites are given. Usage is inferable rather than guided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.